last night i had a freaky premonition that you were writing a sift post, but i ignored it because i was right in the middle of writing my own sift post on how vaccinations cause autoeroticism.

personally, i choose not to interpret the study as support of his latter interpretation, a decreasing trust in the institution of science.

with the exception of minor and inevitable setbacks, backlashes, and dark ages along the way, i see the long-term graph of trust in science over superstition reassuringly on the rise.

though the study does highlight one of the reasons why, in the scope of one lifetime on that graph, it can seem a painfully slow progression.

I'm not surprised. Most people don't really get how science is done and almost no one wants other people making decisions for them--in regards to what is true or not true, real or not real. I'm all for people making up their own minds, but at some point you have to admit that you can't know everything about everything; at that point, you are forced to allow an expert to at least narrow down the field of options for you. The internet has both helped (in allowing open access to information) and hurt (in allowing open access to quackery) this process.

Anyway, the study was more proving that argumentum ad populum is alive and thriving.

Sure, but that finding is boring. The other finding is way more interesting.

*quality

Awarding berticus with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by UsesProzac.